The Crap Nexus, a History.

This paper focuses primarily on the causes, and effects of the Industrial Revolution, and how they are primarily mental. To support such a claim I have refered to the book The Wealth and Poverty of Nations by David S. Landes, along with the following sites: lewrockwell.com, industrialrevolution.sea, Wikipedia.org, and Webster.com. I write this to inform you of the effects of a revolution on a persons outlook on the world, and how very disgustingly drastic these changes can be.

Any drastic change, has to be accepted in the minds of those it is changing, and those same people will effectively be forced to perceive their world differently once all is said and done. The Industrial revolution was no different, being fueled by the mental state of the people of England in the eighteenth century, and essentially caused the destruction of value placed in anything other then it's economic impact. It was a regularity of change, and drive to innovate that caused the industrial revolution, that self same revolution that gave way to the age of the cash nexus. It heralded in an obsession with currency. It effectively changed the way people see everything around them. Revolutions are completely in the mind.

The general mind set during the eighteenth century was one which had already been shaken from it's traditional roots by the Enlightenment, and scientific revolution. It was one in which change was becoming a regularity. "the Golden Age (utopia) actually lay ahead; and that people were now better off, smarter, more capable than before." (pg. 201, The Wealth and Poverty of Nations) With that mind set, comes a feeling of superiority, which people would stop at nothing to be able to keep adding to. With this people were now competing to come up with the next big scientific breakthrough. It was this state of mind that was the cause for every scientific breakthrough from the steam engine, to mechanized clocks, to the foot treadle would not ever have come into existence had England not been in the mental state it had been in.

What of the common people? Those without the mind power to be a part in the rush of new scientific advancements spewing forth? In general, England had become a society which was wavering, having for many people lost a meaning, and purpose to life when religion began to not be regarded as so absolute, credited to the Enlightenment. Then comes the Scientific revolution which has people basing everything on observations, and trying to create the next scientific development; but an average English peasant doesn't have the education (even though education was most definitely on the rise) needed to make these astoundingly clever discoveries. So what is an English peasant to do in such a time? The obvious answer would be to continue doing what the poor had been tasked with doing since the beginning of society, that is, to farm, but not as many farmers were needed to feed the populace as had been in the past, leaving many thousands of people willing to accept change looking for employment. For a while they found that in their very own cottages, but once they were expected to travel to an actual factory with machines to increase productivity, they didn't resist. It was the state of mind that the situation which the poor were placed in that provided the workers needed to fuel the industrial revolution.

From the bowels of the industrial revolution sprang a way of looking at the world that is not only despicable, but quite disgusting actually.The Cash Nexus is simply looking at other people only as to there economic impact on yourself. This mind set brought on by the constant competition of the industrial revolution, causes a loss of value in everything from items, to the people around you, to your very future. With the cash nexus comes a plethora of problems which are not perceived as problems by the general public under the spell of the aforementioned cash nexus. It is an outright obsession with money. It is greed hidden behind a technical name. Most people would agree that greed is an unpleasant quality, and yet we live in a world where almost everyone's world revolves around money, that is quite a strange predicament. Not only does this imply that money is actually worth more then the things that can be obtained with it, it carves out a class system that is even more cruel and unwarranted then those of nobility which were so hated. The increasing gap between the rich and poor nations ever since the nineteenth century is proof. Royalty is no longer decided by lineage, you are now worth as much as your bank account. Paris Hilton is now essentially a modern princess, she is better then you, she's royalty; if that statement isn't enough to shake someones trust in the useless cash nexus, then we are all doomed to lives of meaningless statistics. The industrial revolution led the way for people to no longer become individuals, but rather, a source of income. Because of the industrial revolution, you are simply a statistic to everyone else, a much different way of thinking then had previously existed.

The Industrial Revolution has caused many advancements in science, and technology; but it was in fact because of the mind set of people in England at the time that led to the ability for such a revolution to occur. These scientific and technical advances have changed the way we conduct our daily lives; but even more so how we perceive our world, and surroundings. It is true that because of the Industrial revolution that we now have all the nice products that everyone loves so much, and the medicines that everyone trusts so much in; but at what price does all of that come? Is it worth it? Do the physical goods, which are undeniably entertaining, and useful, do they outweigh the value in things of old? Are we essentially selling our souls for nice flashing mass produced toys? That is my question for you, answer it cautiously.

Rough Drafts are fun

Palmyra Maine is by all accounts a small town. Its largest claim to fame would probably be its Wal-Mart (which can barely even be considered to actually be in Palmyra). Other than that, Palmyra has many acres of woodland, a couple convenient general stores, a quaint little elementary school, a wood mill, and some snowmobile trails, not much to set it apart from hundreds of other towns… except one thing; the aptly named Palmyra Outdoor Resort. Since 1956 when Richard Cayer first opened the original 9-hole golf course, Palmyra has never been the same on both an economical, and an intangible level.

Back in the days when the Golf course was first designed and constructed, a round of golf would cost you about _____, and the course would have about _______ rounds played annually, brining in an estimated $______ to Palmyra. Since 1956, the whole establishment has undergone many changes; the most notable of course would be its expansion, in 1998, from simply a 9 hole golf course, to a an 18-hole golf course/driving range/95 lot campground/winter ski park/Outdoor Resort. Now, a full round of golf alone will cost someone $28, and about 9,000 rounds are played annually brining in about $252,000 from the golf course alone, not to mention the extra additions, every year to Palmyra. This expansion covered all its bases on soil erosion control, surface-water runoff, and solid-waste disposal, and as such it did not harm or severely impact the environment at all. What it did impact though, is the overall attractiveness, and appeal of Palmyra as a place for people from at least the surrounding towns and such to come to. Besides the Golf Course, Palmyra really doesn’t have anything to draw potential consumers to it. With a golf course, and even (hugely) more so, now with an “Outdoor Resort” Palmyra now has a legitimate reason for people to come to it above other local areas, bringing with them their hard earned money, which they promptly then place in the hands of a Palmyra resident golf course attendant. The Palmyra Outdoor resort has brought quite a bit of money to the local economy, and it doesn’t stop at cash coughed up by people directly to the resort itself; no, as people are traveling to get to it, they must also stop at one of the few other small businesses proudly located in Palmyra. Had Richard Cayer never decieded on Palmyra for his project, we would have been a much poorer community.

When the golf course first opened in 1956, it had a staff of _______, to maintain, and run it. Since then, especially with the expansion into becoming the Palmyra Outdoor Resort it now creates jobs for _______ people, most of who live nearby. A large number of jobs are created in maintaining the golf course alone; many of which are taken by local high school students on their summer vacations, such as Ben Taylor, who worked as a _________ keeping the green in good shape this past summer. Add to the jobs created during the golf courses open summer season, to those needed to run the campground, and also the ski park during the winter, and you have one of the largest job opportunities for many miles around. The general pay an employee, ranges from ______ to _______ and anywhere in between. The resort has produced a marked affect on the employment opportunities close to home for many a Palmyra resident.

Also gained with the golf course, is something that differentiates Palmyra from so many other small towns in the area. The golf course gives Palmyra something that no one else around has anything like. It, in a sense, gives Palmyra a symbol of something that puts it above and ahead of other local communities, at least in one respect. Nokomis Regional High is able to have a golf team which is able to practice at a near by real golf course to help them… because Palmyra has just such a thing. Without the golf course and outdoor resort, Palmyra would be just another unnoticeable little town in central Maine. With it, people have a reason to note Palmyra more then most other local towns. Ask anyone around, and besides Wal-Mart the golf course is the first thing that will come to his or her mind as important about Palmyra. If there is one immeasurable gain from the creation of these facilities it is pride, which is a rare commodity around here. The outdoor resort gives Palmyra something to have some pride.

The development of the Palmyra Golf Course, and Outdoor Resort effected Palmyra on both an economic, and intangible pride levels. First, and most obviously, it brings in much money from outside of Palmyra. Second, it gives that money to the people of Palmyra who find employment there. Finally, it gives the people of Palmyra something that they can be proud no other town has in the general area. If Richard Cayer (and now Brain Cayer who is currently the general manager and spearheaded the 1998 expansion) had not decided to place his efforts in Palmyra, today the small town community would be profoundly less prosperous.

The not so simple truth.

Throughout history religion and science have seemed to clash regularly; this is simply a product of a difference in belief of how to find truth. One side would say that truth can be found simply by making observations with your senses, the other that a trust in something greater then yourself will show you the truth. This debate has changed topics often throughout history: from what the center of the universe is, to how to educate people, to how life actually started, to even the definition of life, but at the core has stayed to the same basic dispute. Many intelligent people have pondered the question of how to actually find truth, and yet the argument still rages, and always will.
During the time periods (approx. 1600-1800) now known as the scientific revolution and the enlightenment two forces (Science, and Religion) started to clash on a number of subjects not the least prominent of which would be the debate between Geocentricism and Heliocentricism brought on by Copernicus, and later supported by Galileo and his telescope. Copernicus claimed that the sun was the center of the universe, not the earth as had been highly accepted and undisputed up to that point. This theory of a Geocentric universe was rejected by the Catholic Church due to traditional literal interpretation of certain passages from the bible. Galileo however came to the forefront of this subject wielding his telescope and his observations of movements of celestial bodies that would seem to indicate that Copernicus was indeed correct. This "proof", however, was not enough to convince the Catholic church of the time, due to their unwavering dedication and faith in the bible. This conflict was caused solely by a difference in discerning truth.

Another dispute between religion and science during the scientific revolution was spurred by Diderot and his Encyclopedia. The encyclopedia is in essence a compendium of all knowledge. It contained definitions and explanations of basically everything, based on sensual observations and logic based investigations. The biased, negative opinion of religion held by Diderot and his collaborators laced the encyclopedia as is seen in full effect here "Religion serves as a pretext for this unjust tyranny which has the effect of making a man incapable of bearing with a way of thinking that differs from his own.". Needless to say this angered the church. Diderot's goal to create a complete work of all knowledge based on sensual observations began conflicting with Catholicism when, and only when it started becoming directly slander the church.

Today, disputes between religion and science still rage. The most heated is probably that of the creation of life. The two sides being Creationism and Darwinian Evolution. Creationism theory is simply that God created the Earth, animals, and people in a period of seven days. Evolution theory states that animals (including humans) have developed through a process called natural selection. Natural selection is a process in which a species will adapt to survive in it's environment, through random mutations in an singular specimen that has offspring with other average animals of it's own species, and after many, many generations the mutation that the original had has now spread enough to be the norm. Again, the scientific theory urges a need for physical observable evidence, whereas the religious view requires trust.

A second example of a modern dispute between religion and science would be whether or not to conduct embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cells are thought to hold nearly limitless repairs for every kind of human tissue. The scientific way of looking at this issue is to interpret the four or five day old ball of cells can not live on it's own, and as such is not truly a living being; thus it is morally acceptable to destroy it for the purpose of creating cures for an already living functioning human being. The religious side would say that it is a living human life, whether or not it has developed yet or not doesn't matter, it simply is human life, and cannot therefore be killed, even in an effort to prevent (postpone) the deaths of other living humans.

The disputes between religion and science throughout time have stemmed of the same base disagreement; and that is how to discern what is true. Traditionally a scientific point of view would have one placing one's belief in what is real solely in one's own power: in what one can see, feel, smell, taste, or hear; in essence, sensual observations. Galileo, and Darwin were most definitely proponents of sensual observations being the root of truth. On the other hand, a religious perspective has usually placed ones basis of reality in the hands of something greater then oneself; in essence, faith. The times, and the debates may have changed the exterior, but the root cause of them remain essentially the same.

What has changed (an extremely large amount, actually) is the general public's exposure, and socially expected norms. Where now, in general the public is hugely focused and dependant upon physical evidence, and sensual observations to prove something, before the enlightenment it would have been considered unnecessary to search any farther for a reason why something happened then God's will. We now live in a society that is hugely dominated by the scientific point of view, whereas during and before the scientific revolution and enlightenment society was largely on the religious side of the argument. This drastic shift can be attributed in it's entirety to the fact that for the most part people look back at the scientific revolution and enlightenment as a good change. If we were looking back at them as a bad set of events, I can almost guarantee that we would still be a highly religious society. Instead we live in a world where religion is discreetly looked down upon; and that hugely differentiates the debates between science and religion of now, and the past.

The large question still lingers; what is the correct way to find truth? Is science right; does someone find truth through their own bodies, or is religion correct in saying that the only real way to truth is to accept that something much greater then you will show you what is real? This is a question no human being will ever be able to fully, undebatabley be able to answer. Science advocates that truth is found through sensual observation, but how do you know that what you are sensing is what is real? A color blind person see's the world differently then everyone else. What if how all humans can interpret the world isn't actually how the world is? What if a humans senses, which science puts so much faith in, are telling your brain lies? On the other side of this is religion (which at least completely admits that it is based on faith), leaving an easily found feeling of never truly knowing for sure whether what you are supposed to accept as real, even though a human mind couldn't ever truly comprehend, is actually the truth. In order to not slip into that doubt, you must have one single quality. That quality is faith. There can only be one actual truth, but whatever way you lean towards, scientific, or religious, you need faith: be it in either your senses truly perceiving things correctly, or in a being your consciousness can't actually grasp. There is no way of ever truly knowing, all you can do is believe, all you can do is have faith.